4 ms·

I think it's one of those cases where the authorities have to make a statement rather than a matter of believing he'd do sometthing stupid with it. WW2-era or

I think it's one of those cases where the authorities have to make a statement rather than a matter of believing he'd do sometthing stupid with it. WW2-era or not, a Panther is a lethal piece of hardware, and apparently he's been seen driving it around at some point. And if one person does it then someone else can too. And the next one might not be a harmless old man content with merely collecting military hardware. He also had an anti-aircraft gun, multiple machine guns, pistols, and lots of ammunition. The same logic applies there; old or not, it could be very dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands and that's why we have gun control laws. I suspect selling the collection could easily pay the fines, so it's not like he's being punished that hard.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
> I think it's one of those cases where the authorities have to make a statement rather than a matter of believing he'd do sometthing stupid with it. What's the statement here? The statement I see is that intent does not matter, which kind of flies in the face of most of the history of European criminal law. The law was written to prosecute people who are up to no good. Why the relevant parties here did not realize that some elderly collector is in fact not up to no good and prosecute and sentence accordingly I can only speculate. >WW2-era or not, a Panther is a lethal piece of hardware, and apparently he's been seen driving it around at some point. And if one person does it then someone else can too. And the next one might not be a harmless old man content with merely collecting military hardware. If you want to drive around and destroy things there are more cost effective options, there have been recent examples of such shenanigans in Europe. Some elderly collector is not really a threat to public health and more than a small fleet of construction equipment or heavy trucks is. >I suspect selling the collection could easily pay the fines, so it's not like he's being punished that hard. I think it's just as likely that the fine was sized so that between being forced to liquidate everything and paying the fines he will die penniless.
- fogihujy 5y ago
  > What's the statement here? That gun control laws are still being enforced, no matter who breaks them? That you can't get away with breaking the law just because you commit a crime that most people don't think is that bad? > The law was written to prosecute people who are up to no good. We're talking about someone who confessed to the crime he was sentenced for, and last time I checked, the law is supposed to be equally applied, no matter who you are. Intent does indeed matter, and if this had been some moron with intent to use the tank, we wouldn't be talking about a suspended 14-day prison sentence and a fine. > If you want to drive around and destroy things there are more cost effective options Definitely. I'd argue that the relative scarcity of tanks, however, is clearly correlated to the fact that military hardware ownership is pretty much limited to the military. I could -- in theory -- kill someone with a hammer I bought for 1€ at a flea market. That does not mean we should abolish gun control laws because "there's cheaper ways of doing it anyway". Nor should we allow private tank ownership, because I could clearly cause damage more cost-efficiently with a bulldozer. That being said, I agree that this particular individual doesn't seem to have been a threat at all. Someone potentially stealing the stuff from the old man, however, wouldn't even have to think about things like costs. > I think it's just as likely that the fine was sized so that between being forced to liquidate everything and paying the fines he will die penniless. Well, he's been given two years to sell or donate the tank and the AA gun to a collector. There are definitely people who are interested. The final price depends on supply/demand and I'm not an expert when it comes to collecting military hardware. Whether he'll die penniless or not, well, he was able to afford a tank and an AA gun, as well as a number of other weapons, and ammunition. Apart from that, he also had room for it all. That indicates he does have some money available (assuming he didn't spend it all on the hardware and resorted to living of instant noodles).
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  > What's the statement here? The statement I see is that intent does not matter, which kind of flies in the face of most of the history of European criminal law. It’s because there is a certain school of thought that people should be punished and imprisoned for ‘immoral acts’ even it if hurts no one, they have no ill intent, and keep to themselves. See gun laws, drug laws, laws against homosexuality, obscenity laws, and speech laws. Turns out regardless of where you are on the mainstream political spectrum, forcing people to live a live a certain way in the privacy of their own home never goes out of style, except for well, a certain disfavored minority political group.
sokoloff 5y ago
As long as the government only takes up to all your assets (but not more), then “it’s not like he’s being punished that hard”? I’m not in favor of private collectors of fully operational tanks, but the last sentence doesn’t hold any water for me.
- fogihujy 5y ago
  If I illegally obtained an item, was sentenced to a fine and to sell said item, and the proceeds of the sale covered the fine, then I'd say I got off lightly. In this particular case the fine wasn't handed out solely for the two items that the perpetrator was sentenced to sell, it was also about illegally obtained machine guns, automatic pistols and lots of ammunition.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

> I think it's one of those cases where the authorities have to make a statement rather than a matter of believing he'd do sometthing stupid with it. What's the statement here? The statement I see is that intent does not matter, which kind of flies in the face of most of the history of European criminal law. The law was written to prosecute people who are up to no good. Why the relevant parties here did not realize that some elderly collector is in fact not up to no good and prosecute and sentence accordingly I can only speculate. >WW2-era or not, a Panther is a lethal piece of hardware, and apparently he's been seen driving it around at some point. And if one person does it then someone else can too. And the next one might not be a harmless old man content with merely collecting military hardware. If you want to drive around and destroy things there are more cost effective options, there have been recent examples of such shenanigans in Europe. Some elderly collector is not really a threat to public health and more than a small fleet of construction equipment or heavy trucks is. >I suspect selling the collection could easily pay the fines, so it's not like he's being punished that hard. I think it's just as likely that the fine was sized so that between being forced to liquidate everything and paying the fines he will die penniless.

fogihujy 5y ago
> What's the statement here? That gun control laws are still being enforced, no matter who breaks them? That you can't get away with breaking the law just because you commit a crime that most people don't think is that bad? > The law was written to prosecute people who are up to no good. We're talking about someone who confessed to the crime he was sentenced for, and last time I checked, the law is supposed to be equally applied, no matter who you are. Intent does indeed matter, and if this had been some moron with intent to use the tank, we wouldn't be talking about a suspended 14-day prison sentence and a fine. > If you want to drive around and destroy things there are more cost effective options Definitely. I'd argue that the relative scarcity of tanks, however, is clearly correlated to the fact that military hardware ownership is pretty much limited to the military. I could -- in theory -- kill someone with a hammer I bought for 1€ at a flea market. That does not mean we should abolish gun control laws because "there's cheaper ways of doing it anyway". Nor should we allow private tank ownership, because I could clearly cause damage more cost-efficiently with a bulldozer. That being said, I agree that this particular individual doesn't seem to have been a threat at all. Someone potentially stealing the stuff from the old man, however, wouldn't even have to think about things like costs. > I think it's just as likely that the fine was sized so that between being forced to liquidate everything and paying the fines he will die penniless. Well, he's been given two years to sell or donate the tank and the AA gun to a collector. There are definitely people who are interested. The final price depends on supply/demand and I'm not an expert when it comes to collecting military hardware. Whether he'll die penniless or not, well, he was able to afford a tank and an AA gun, as well as a number of other weapons, and ammunition. Apart from that, he also had room for it all. That indicates he does have some money available (assuming he didn't spend it all on the hardware and resorted to living of instant noodles).
oceanplexian 5y ago
> What's the statement here? The statement I see is that intent does not matter, which kind of flies in the face of most of the history of European criminal law. It’s because there is a certain school of thought that people should be punished and imprisoned for ‘immoral acts’ even it if hurts no one, they have no ill intent, and keep to themselves. See gun laws, drug laws, laws against homosexuality, obscenity laws, and speech laws. Turns out regardless of where you are on the mainstream political spectrum, forcing people to live a live a certain way in the privacy of their own home never goes out of style, except for well, a certain disfavored minority political group.

sokoloff 5y ago

As long as the government only takes up to all your assets (but not more), then “it’s not like he’s being punished that hard”? I’m not in favor of private collectors of fully operational tanks, but the last sentence doesn’t hold any water for me.

fogihujy 5y ago
If I illegally obtained an item, was sentenced to a fine and to sell said item, and the proceeds of the sale covered the fine, then I'd say I got off lightly. In this particular case the fine wasn't handed out solely for the two items that the perpetrator was sentenced to sell, it was also about illegally obtained machine guns, automatic pistols and lots of ammunition.